Rel=Canonical Help
-
The site in question is www.example.com/example. The client has added a rel=canonical tag to this page as . In other words, instead of putting the tag on the pages that are not to be canonical and pointing them to this one, they are doing it backwards and putting the same URL as the canonical one as the page they are putting the tag on. They have done this with thousands of pages.
I know this is incorrect, but my question is, until the issue is resolved, are these tags hurting them at all just being there?
-
Thanks, at least I know that it's not creating any big issues for the time being until we get it all cleaned up. Thanks again for your help!
-
Oh, so it's site-wide... got it. The issue is that you're basically sending Google a signal that the non-canonical URLs are canonical. It's not a disaster, but it would be better to remove them temporarily, until you can put the correct tags in place.
-
They put the tag on almost every page on the site, thinking it would solve their duplicate content issues, but they didn't realize that the tage needed to go on the non-canonical pages. Basically, every page has the tag with the same URL that the tag is on.
-
I'm not entirely sure I'm understanding the situation - did they just put the canonical tag on the one page? Does that page drive any other content/URLs ("page" is a bit of a loaded term, since one file could create 100s of URLs that Google can crawl)?
If they simply added it to one page and the canonical references itself, there shouldn't be any harm. It sounds like this page is the canonical version, so you're really just telling Google that. It's not necessary, in most cases, but it's not a problem.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Canonical tag not working
I have a weebly site and I put the canonical tag in the header code but the moz crawler still says that I'm missing the canonical tag. Any tips?
Technical SEO | | ctpolarbears0 -
404 or rel="canonical" for empty search results?
We have search on our site, using the URL, so we might have: example.com/location-1/service-1, or example.com/location-2/service-2. Since we're a directory we want these pages to rank. Sometimes, there are no search results for a particular location/service combo, and when that happens we show an advanced search form that lets the user choose another location, or expand the search area, or otherwise help themselves. However, that search form still appears at the URL example.com/location/service - so there are several location/service combos on our website that show that particular form, leading to duplicate content issues. We may have search results to display on these pages in the future, so we want to keep them around, and would like Google to look at them and even index them if that happens, so what's the best option here? Should we rel="canonical" the page to the example.com/search (where the search form usually resides)? Should we serve the search form page with an HTTP 404 header? Something else? I look forward to the discussion.
Technical SEO | | 4RS_John1 -
Canonical and Alternate REL
Hi I have a website which is mostly dynamic content from a database. In the header of the site I have a function which outputs the rel="canonical" link and in some cases the canonical is the page the user is visiting and not another page on the site but I still show it in the source. However we have just recently launched our mobile website which is stored on an M DOT domain (i.e. m.mydomain.com) which has different URL's to my main website so following Google's recommendations we have created rel="alternate" links on my desktop site to point to the equivalent mobile pages and on the mobile pages I have created rel="canonical" links which point back to the relevant desktop site keeping everything tidy.
Technical SEO | | yousayjump
My question is, is there an issue with having both a rel="canonical" and rel="alternate" in the source of of a single page on my desktop site? Is it conflicting or detrimental in anyway? Thanks for reading0 -
Canonical usage and duplicate content
Hi We have a lot of pages about areas like ie. "Mallorca" (domain.com/Spain/Mallorca), with tabbed pages like "excursion" (domain.com/spain/Mallorca/excursions) and "car rental" (domain.com/Spain/Mallorca/car-rental) etc. The text on ie the "car rental"-page is very similar on Mallorca and Rhodos, and seomoz marks these as duplicate content. This happens on "car rental", "map", "weather" etc. which not have a lot of text but images and google maps inserted. Could i use rel=nex/prev/canonical to gather the information from the tabbed pages? That could show google that the Rhodos-map page is related to Rhodos and not Mallorca. Is that all wrong or/and is there a better way to do this? Thanks, Alsvik
Technical SEO | | alsvik0 -
On-Page Report Card & Rel Canonical
Hello, I ran one of our pages through the On-Page Report Card. Among the results we are getting a lower grade due to the following "critical factor" : Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Explanation If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL. Recommendation We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply. This is for an e-commerce site, and the canonical links are inserted automatically by the cart software. The cart is also creating the canonical url as a relative link, not an absolute URL. In this particular case it's a self-referential link. I've read a ton on this and it seems that this should be okay (I also read that Bing might have an issue with this). Is this really an issue? If so, what is the best practice to pass this critical factor? Thanks, Paul
Technical SEO | | rwilson-seo0 -
Please help....
Hi Guys! Ok a bit of a funny one here which is causing a confusion between us and a web designer and I was wondering if anyone on here might be able to help. Just a bit of back ground for you, the website has been built on Concrete 5 and when we tried to building a sitemap we found over 110,000 pages. When we spoke to the web designer they have told us that within Google webmaster tools, Google has only indexed 58. But.... (and this is where things get a little confusing, so bare with me.) I thought that cant be right so into the Google search bar I put in site:www.sitename.co.uk and had 217 results appear. So google cant have just 58 pages indexed, right? So after speaking to the designer he then posted on the Concrete 5 help forum, to try and help figure it out. I have posted his exact forum post below that the web designer has asked: I'm having some issues where a site we are working on seems to be making multiple pages going to the same page. An SEO specialist has run a report and found a number of duplicate pages created by C5. We are concerned that this is going to dilute or worse penalise the way google sees the site. http://www.sitename.co.uk/
Technical SEO | | NoisyLittleMonkey
[http://www.sitename.co.uk/index.php?cID=?akID[155]atSelectOptionID...
[http://www.sitename.co.uk/index.php?cID=?akID[155]atSelectOptionID...
[http://www.sitename.co.uk/index.php?cID=?akID[155]atSelectOptionID... Is there a way of stopping google from accessing these duplicate 'cID' pages and stop them being made? Also is there a way of getting rid of the ones that are there? We've done a number of sites in C5 and are beginning to get concerned about this... So I guess my question is: If I can access the same content via 4-5 different cID's is that classed as duplicate content? Thanks in advance guys, and any help would greatly appreciated. 🙂0 -
Help - Rank is Continually Dropping
We are aggressively optimizing one of our internal pages for SEO related terms. http://www.arnima.com/Search-Engine-Optimization.aspx Some sample search terms are: SEO Florida, Florida SEO, SEO Tampa, Tampa SEO etc Based on recent work, we find that our anchor text distribution is good, if not very good. Our PA is for the internal page is 60 and our DA is 62 yet our Google rank for the above search terms is continually dropping. We have gone from #2 to #8 in the last few weeks. We have checked the websites of all that appear above us and their PA and DA are substantially less than us. Their anchor text links do not appear to be as well structured either. We have many unique domains - websites that we built - that point directly back to our SEO page. Some of these are fairly highly ranked sites... We are totally baffled. Can someone shed some light on this? What could the reason be? Any (and all) help and insights would be much appreciated! Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | RajeevRatra0 -
Canonical pagination content
Hello We have a large ecommerce site, as you are aware that ecommerce sites has canonical issues, I have read various sources on how best to practice canonical on ecommerce site but I am not sure yet.. My concert is pagination where I am on category product listing page.. the pagination will have all different product not same however the meta data will be same so should I make let's say page 2 or 3 to main category page or keep them as is to index those pages? Another issue is using filters, where I am on any page and I filter by price or manufacturer basically the page will be same so here It seems issue of duplicate content, so should I canonical to category page only for those result types? So basically If I let google crawl my pagination content and I only canonical those coming with filter search result that would be best practice? and would google webmaster parameter handling case would be helpful in this scenario ? Please feel free to ask in case you have any queries regards
Technical SEO | | CNMOnline28
Carl0